This will be my fourth year as a teacher of college freshman. It's been an incredibly rewarding experience. I remember my first day of Florida State's teacher training/practicum -- affectionately called "Boot Camp" -- feeling very strange. I was fresh out of college and worried about starting graduate school. And they expected me to teach freshman?? I was just a freshman four years ago. Did they have any idea how terrible of a student I was as a freshman?
It didn't take me very long to get over my trepidation. I was too busy to worry about my feelings. The more I learned about the various theoretical positions toward teaching, the more I was persuaded that (a specific kind of) education could work to change the minds of young people, and the more I came to believe that certain practical methods could be utilized to improve writing and thinking among our students. Through that belief I became committed to my job.
The senior graduate students all tried to temper our enthusiasm. Speaking from experience, they said that we would quickly come to know how frustrating the job actually was. All the idealistic notions we had in our heads about enlightening young minds would be replaced by more practical concerns like work loads, student deficiencies, etc. I had a hard time believing that. In fact, I remember being disgusted when TAs tried to get the technology classrooms not because they had any meaningful pedagogical methods, but because those classes had a smaller enrollment cap.
The senior graduate students were right, of course. The enthusiasm fades. I used to methodically plan out my lessons, return papers over the course of a weekend, prepare hand-outs and discussion questions weeks in advance. It's not as if I don't do those things anymore (well... the grading part I don't do), it's just that I'm not really motivated to change. I've become comfortable. I think that my teaching methods work, and frankly I don't have any reason to change them.
Why do I think that my teaching methods work? No reason, really. "How can I tell the degree to which they improve?" you may ask. "Why would I even ask that question?" is what I would reply. I'm no dummy: my students do improve. I can tell that they're getting better. But the important question is: would they be getting more better (yeah, I said it) if I used a different method? That is not a question that I've ever been asked.
In my three years at Florida State, I was evaluated on my teaching just two times, none after my first year. My supervisor was a truly wonderful boss--the most supportive I've ever had--but she didn't have time to look over the shoulders of 100 TAs. The prevailing idea was that as long as you were not fucking up, you were good enough to teach.
I know that if I had someone looking over my shoulder, I would improve as a teacher. That's just a fact. If "getting better as a teacher" was actually part of my job instead of something that's just a "bonus," my students would be better served. I have no better argument for this than watching tenured professors just... not give a shit. Why do they need to improve? They've already got tenure. Never reply to emails, never attend department meetings and events, never make themselves available to students, never change the syllabus, etc.
So the question is this: given that we know that there is little-to-no ongoing evaluation of teachers, why is performance-evaluation (and in turn performance-pay) such a bad idea? I reocognize that it opens the door for 1) being fired on ideological grounds rather than job-performance, and 2) it makes teachers in some ways responsible for their students' deficiencies. But assuming that the body which hires/fires you is a teaching one (i.e. is a responsible professional organization and knows that they're evaluating you based on relevant criteria), and assuming that they're giving you valuable feedback on how to adapt your teaching style to meet the specific needs of your class, I actually think it's a really great idea. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a billion things to do (not the least of which is to read these accursed Keats articles), but I do have one thought: do we know that teaching-oriented schools aren't already doing this? The obvious (to me) answer is that no one is doing teaching evaluations because no one at RU-VH type schools gives a shit about teaching - they're all way more concerned with research. But at the small liberal arts school where I got my BA, no one cares about research. I don't think there's any publication requirement at all for tenure there. The focus is entirely on teaching, which is why I was so baffled by the idea of a large lecture literature class when we were talking the other day. All my classes were 10-20 students and taught by professors who were constantly revising their syllabi to make classes better. Now, I don't know that any of these places have instituted anything like performance pay, but I'm curious now whether they have. I don't think the move that you're proposing would be as foreign to these institutions as would be to a place like UIC.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about public high schools? That's what really motivated the blog posts. It seems as though teachers unions oppose the idea. I'm not *entirely* sure why, other than the fact that they want job security. I totally understand wanting security in one's job, but not if that means you can't be evaluated on your performance.
ReplyDeleteA possible answer to your question: http://www.truthout.org/in-defense-public-school-teachers-a-time-crisis58567
ReplyDeletePS- I have my own answer as well, which is similar, but no time to type it out at the moment...
Like... I just don't know how much of this I believe:
ReplyDelete"Subject to what might be labeled as a form of bare or stripped-down pedagogy, teachers are removed from the processes of deliberation and reflection, reduced to implementing lock-step, time-on-task pedagogies that do great violence to students, while promoting a division of labor between conception and execution hatched by bureaucrats and 'experts' from mainly conservative foundations."
Who says this is true? And why is administration always look at like the devil? Aren't people who get PhDs in education administration go to the same (liberal) universities as the rest of us? And why does the notion of measured evaluation strike fear in the heart of every teacher?
If you can grade a paper, why can't you grade a teaching performance?
I think THE ENTIRE PROBLEM is that we have "praised (teachers) for their public service, (because of) the trust we in part to them in educating our children or the firewall they provide between a culture" blah blah. If we valorize teachers as poor, suffering martyrs (or worse, as nuns and priests of culture), then we don't have to hold them accountable because they're already suffering on our behalf (boo-hoo).
But ahhhh.... if we paid teachers $100K a year, suddenly it wouldn't seem as though it was so bad to be stressed all the time, to work absurdly long hours, and to get no recognition for your efforts. That's what the money is for. And it would make more sense, then, for the public to demand a sensible, measurable return on our investment.
To be honest, I'm kinda on the side of the notion that "knowledge that can't be measured is viewed as irrelevant." If it can't be measured, how do you know it even exists? Are we concerned with performance, or just sitting in the classroom and absorbing knowledge?
Furthermore, nothing in this article actually contradicts what I've been saying. In fact, I think it enforces it. Whatever this author's goals are for education, why does he think that administrators are fundamentally opposed to helping teachers achieve those goals? Is he against certain administrating practices, or evaluating teachers all together?
Just imagine yourself in art class. Your teacher could teach you about manipulating the color pallet, using lines, etc. in order to create a better picture. The better you utilize the methods, the better your performance. But now suppose the teacher wants you to "explore your creativity" so that it doesn't seem like you're in a terrible military (disciplinary, to use the Foucaultian term) complex. But my question about that is -- why the fuck do I need a teacher at all to do that?? I can explore my creativity on my own.
"Knowledge that can't be measured is viewed as irrelevant." Yes, that's true, but I feel this line of thinking is something worth resisting. Are you saying this is how it SHOULD be? What about all this theory we're studying? How would you measure it, and is it therefore irrelevant? Your concern with "performance" I read as a concern with productive or useful knowledge...and isn't that neoliberal?
ReplyDeleteOn the exploring creativity front: your Foucault reference is exactly why I'd think we need teachers to say, "Hey, kid, it's okay to color outside the lines." Sure, you don't need a teacher in order to HAVE creativity, but a teacher can remind you that you're allowed to use it.
Now tell me why I'm wrong! Wheeeee!
You measure your knowledge of theory by being able to successfully summarize, analyze, and apply it in a three-page bibliography.
ReplyDeleteAs Dr. Canuel shows us quite regularly, it's easy to see (evaluate) when a student doesn't understand something. How would you feel if one of your students told you they understood feminism (or creative writing), but couldn't reproduce, demonstrate, to critically respond to any of the concepts that come as the necessary preconditions of propositional knowledge? I don't know about you, but I'd laugh. It's Happy-Foucault.
And you know... I can get my cheer-leading from my friends. We don't need to pay people 60-100K a year to say "it's okay to color outside the lines." Anyone can do that. I can do that right now. What's more--an argument can be made that artwork itself (by virtue of its status as literature) already claims that very same thing. So if the work can speak for itself, why would you need a teacher at all?
Lately, workshop has been making me wonder why I need a teacher at all. But that's a different issue entirely.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine how much better they would be if the dean was evaluating your workshops based on performance, enthusiasm, preparation, etc.?
ReplyDelete